Re: Robot Evolution
- From: "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:03:30 -0500 (EST)
John Edser wrote:
What appears to be your most important
statement: " ..there exists, constructible
by a mechanical procedure, a
sentence G_T, such that G_T is true and
unprovable in T just in case T is
consistent" does not make sense to me.
I cannot fathom: "...just in case T
is consistent".
However, your ignorance is _not_ a formal proof that
the statement is incorrect.
Your ignorance is merely an informal proof (as if
more were needed) that you are an innumerate dolt,
and a dolt insistent on remaining obdurately
innumerate, and a dolt insist on presenting your
ignorance as a law of the universe on a par with the
law of gravity or special relativity, a law which
you expect every other participant somehow to
circumvent on your behalf, at great cost in trying
to educate you, when you consistently represent
yourself as a dolt personally insistent on being
incapable of being educated.
The statement as written is precisely correct, and
is stated in precisely correct mathematical
terminology.
Cope.
Any failures involved are entirely your own, and
neither failures of the prior poster nor of the
science of mathematics.
If you need to understand Goedel's proof, go read it
in a textbook, and shut up on the topic and topics
dependent on that proof until you have reduced your
ignorance of Goedel's proof to zero.
I'm betting your lifetime will not suffice,
of course, and that much needed peace and
quiet would suddenly spring forth from your
quarter, to the delight of all.
To do otherwise is rudely to waste the time of every
participant here.
HTH
xanthian.
.
- References:
- Re: Robot Evolution
- From: John Edser
- Re: Robot Evolution
- Prev by Date: Komodu birth: asexual reproduction or self fertilization?
- Next by Date: Re: Do I really inherit half my genes from both parents?
- Previous by thread: Re: Robot Evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Robot Evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|